Session 4 – Trade‐off analyses: what are the best methods and how do we satisfy
stakeholder needs?
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 1
…but first a bit of Vista context…
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 2
Introduction: trade‐offs in Vista
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 3
Introduction: trade‐offs in Vista
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017
ScenarioScenarioFactor 1
Val1 Val2 Val3 Val4
Factor 3
Val1 Val2 Val3
Factor 2
Val1 Val2
Factor 4
Val1 Val2 Val3 Val4
Model
Metric
s con
solid
ation
Metric
s con
solid
ation
KPIs Stakeholder 1
KPI1 KPI2 KPI3 KPI4
KPIs Stakeholder 2
KPI1 KPI2 KPI3
KPIs Stakeholder 3
KPI1 KPI2
Scen
arios a
nalyser
Scen
arios a
nalyser
Trade‐offs
Factor 1
Val1 Val2 Val3 Val4
Factor 3
Val1 Val2 Val3
Factor 2
Val1 Val2
Factor 4
Val1 Val2 Val3 Val4
4
Introduction: trade‐offs in Vista
Vista’s WP5 Impact trade‐off timeframe: First tasks started after summer 2017 Initial assessment early next year and final report by summer 2018
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 5
Trade‐offs ‐ how do we satisfy stakeholder needs?
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 6
Trade‐offs working definition
What do we understand by a trade‐off?
Elements needed:
i. At least twomeasurable variablesii. Variables are expected to be related somehowiii. That relation is an inverse relation
Easiest example ever:
variable + other variable = constant value
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 7
Trade‐offs: food for thought
“At least twomeasurable variables” ‐ Only dealing with quantitative variables
“Variables are expected to be related somehow” ‐ A common context is needed
“That relation is an inverse relation” ‐ A sense or order is required for both variables
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 8
Trade‐offs working definition
“What gets measured gets managed.”Probably by Peter Drucker, or just a trendy meme
However, do not fall in the (incorrect) corollary: “What can’t be measured isn’t worth managing” just because:
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 9
Trade‐offs working definition
The need of a common context
• Usually in ATM trade‐offs are defined between KPAs, still need to be put on a common scenario
• Most often macro and micro trade‐offs are ignored, moving from individual metrics trade‐offs to high‐level or system‐wide implications
• Some trade‐offs may occur at different time scales, short term or long term objectives
• Trade‐offs as a result of factors, regulatory or business, background or foreground.
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 10
Trade‐offs working definition
Inverse relation and relative terms
Often different stakeholders have different perception on same variables
• Certain KPAs are more relevant for some actors, e.g. some actors might not even consider other KPAs
• Micro trade‐offs may lead to different trade‐offs at a macro level, e.g. individual metric worsening for a system‐wide improvement
• Time scale is also subject to perception strategic trade‐offs, e.g. assume current losses for expected future gains.
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 11
Trade‐offs working definition
The many facets of a trade‐off
• Stakeholders, different perspectives• Variables selection, expected relationships• System scale and impact, from micro to macro• Temporal scope, form the short to long term• Effect of changes in the system, factors
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 12
Trade‐offs ‐ what are the best methods?
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 13
Trade‐offs
How to determine trade‐offs:
a. A priori trade‐offs, expected or interesting to be analysed
b. A posteriori trade‐offs, extracted from results exploration
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 14
A priori trade‐offs
1. Expert analysis, e.g. this is may happen or be of interest2. Hypothesis testing, e.g. H0 = “variables A and B are inversely (co‐)related”
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 15
A posteriori trade‐offs
Knowledge discovery,
1. Consider all possible relations,2. Determine common context; scenarios, factors, time‐frames, etc. 3. Apply variable reduction techniques. 4. Discard no statistically relevant relations.5. Compute (co‐)relation matrix in the remainder variable.6. Find any statistically significant inverse (co‐)relations.
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 16
Theoretical approaches
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017
Approach Pros Cons
Correlations(linear dependencies)
‐Fast‐Easy to understand
‐Does not imply causality
Expected utility and prospect theory
(Bayesian networks)
‐Creates probability mapsdependencies
‐hard to determine‐assumes
Granger causality(linear time series predictor)
‐Clear discerns ‐Need large time series‐ Limited to linear
predictors
Artificial Neural Network causality
(ANN time series predictor)
‐not limited to linear predictors
‐Need even larger timeseries
Precursor‐successor analysis(chain of events)
‐Determines causes and effects
‐Knock‐on effects tree
‐Hypothesis testing could be challenging
Replace (co‐)relations with any of the following:
17
Trade‐offs
A priori trade‐offs, a. Relations are known or assumed (expertise)b. Relations are quantified and verified (modelling)
A posteriori trade‐offs, a. Relations are quantified (modelling)b. Relations remain yet to be explained (expertise)
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 18
Warm up questions
Q1. Are we using the right methods for assessing trade‐offs?
Q2. What are the key stakeholder needs that are not being met?
Q3. How might these needs change in the future, e.g. under regulatory change?
Q4. How should we decide on performance trade‐offs (between or within stakeholders) for priority consideration?
Vista consultation workshop, Vienna, 23 October 2017 19
Top Related